• Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.

PoliGAF 2016 |OT13| For Queen and Country

Status
Not open for further replies.
P

Piecake

Member
Suikoguy said:
That's where a judge steps in and rewords it. I wonder if anyone filed suit on it?
Click to expand...

Lawsuit
Floridians for Solar Choice, a group that had submitted a competing measure for the 2016 ballot, announced on January 11, 2016, that they had filed a brief against Amendment 1 with the Florida Supreme Court. The brief claimed that Consumers for Smart Solar's measure is misleading, that it promises solar energy rights for voters that the state constitution already provides, and lures voters into thinking it will increase access to rooftop solar when it will actually reduce solar options. On February 15, 2016, the Florida Supreme Court granted permission for oral arguments to be heard on May 5, 2016. On February 24, 2016, the court rescheduled oral arguments for March 7, 2016.[60][61][62][63]

On March 31, 2016, the Florida Supreme Court ruled that Amendment 1 was not misleading and approved it to remain on the November ballot. In a 4-3 decision, the court stated that the measure was clearly worded and was compliant with the state's single-subject requirement for constitutional amendments. In the dissenting opinion, Justice Barbara Pariente wrote that Amendment 1 was "masquerading as a pro-solar initiative."[64]
Click to expand...

https://ballotpedia.org/Florida_Solar_Energy_Subsidies_and_Personal_Solar_Use,_Amendment_1_(2016)
 
Y

Y2Kev

TLG Fan Caretaker Est. 2009
A Link to the Past said:
True story, I had a nightmare this morning that the election was happening and this was the result:



I was lying in bed for a few minutes thinking "oh god I can't believe we barely won that, how did we fuck up" and then I realized I had no way to have known what the election was while in bed and that it wasn't November 8
Click to expand...

how is this a nightmare

she still wins
 
S

Suikoguy

I whinny my fervor lowly, for his length is not as great as those of the Hylian war stallions
Carpe Carnim said:
You know how we do down here in Heaven's Waiting Room. Amd. 1 is exactly as you've described it, it was meant to be confusing and a slight of hand to counter the more preferable, Enviro backed solar amendment.

I also agree with your assessment of the other amendments. They're more lard for our already portly Constitution. The GOPs incessant kneecapping of Counties' prerogatives is infuriating, especially coming from a group that espouses the sanctity of "Home Rule." But I suppose it's just another sacrifice to keep folks' grandparents and their money coming to Floriduh. Let the working class shoulder the responsibility of keeping the lights on, and the pythons at bay.

I love this state, but these neo-Pork Chop Gang Republicans drive me insane
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pork_Chop_Gang
Click to expand...

Yep, changing the constitution should be the last resort.
Of course, Republicans love the idea since once you put a tax cut in an amendment, it's going to be really tough to get rid of.

It's a surefire way to move towards a state income tax at this rate.

Piecake said:
https://ballotpedia.org/Florida_Solar_Energy_Subsidies_and_Personal_Solar_Use,_Amendment_1_(2016)
Click to expand...

Of course.
 
V

Voysa Reezun

Banned
BlastProcessing said:
I would point out that American Primaries are already unusually directly democratic compared to how other democracies work. I would honestly argue that we have shifted a little too far away from smoke filled rooms and horse trading in our process.
Click to expand...

I agree with all of this. Silly analogy here, maybe, but primaries should be handled more like all-star voting for your favorite American sports league in that voters should have fifty percent of a say in who the nominee is, and the party should have the other fifty percent.

Under a system constructed with this sort of power split in mind, I still think that Obama is the nominee in 2008 because the party would have understood that, after winning the primaries with great enthusiasm and high participation from core party demographics, Obama wasn't a fringe candidate, but a candidate with the ability to be a transformative president. In fact, the superdelegates largely fleeing Hillary to side with Obama in 2008 probably proves my suspicion correct.

On the other hand, maybe a GOP in 2016 can at least run Cruz instead of Trump in 2016 if they have more explicit power to do so. Cruz is just as evil as Trump, but he's also far more coherent as a speaker, far more informed on basic issues (even if he's wrong in his views upon pretty much all of them), and would be less likely to burn the party down in the way that Trump has tried to do (which is an insane point that I can't believe that I'm making about Ted Fucking Cruz). Instead, the party ceded so much power to primary voters that they were essentially stuck with either Trump or a total loss of power at the Federal level by rejecting him and drafting someone else. If the party had clear rules and messaging about sharing the power to pick a candidate with the voters in the first place, Trump doesn't happen.

That balance of power, where the party signals that in the end, it still has leadership that will have a final say in who earns the nomination, is much better for checking the power of a group of insane, but dedicated voters while still allowing for a great candidate to change the party leadership's mind through his or her performance with primary voters.
 
S

smurfx

get some go again
Iolo said:
But how many Tim McVeighs is Donald Trump priming right now.
Click to expand...
hell we just busted 3 people planning to bomb an apartment complex used by samali immigrants in kansas. there will likely be more stuff like this coming and the feds won't be able to stop it all.
 
S

Supast4r

Junior Member
A Link to the Past said:
True story, I had a nightmare this morning that the election was happening and this was the result:



I was lying in bed for a few minutes thinking "oh god I can't believe we barely won that, how did we fuck up" and then I realized I had no way to have known what the election was while in bed and that it wasn't November 8
Click to expand...

I don't see a world were clinton gets less than 300 honestly.
 
Z

ZealousD

Makes world leading predictions like "The sun will rise tomorrow"
RustyNails said:
By the way we all agree that rocket man is the best Elton John song, right
Click to expand...

Don't make me pick, man. Tiny Dancer and Crocodile Rock are too good.
cry.gif
 
phisheep

phisheep

NeoGAF's Chief Barrister
BlastProcessing said:
Some of them, all of them? Seriously I look at parliamentary systems and see tons of problems. I think they are too radical and reactive. The UK, Brazil, Spain, Greece and Belgium are all recent examples of democratic instability. The US is the only Federal Republic with a full Presidential with a two party system.

I think American Exceptionalism does exist and I think that out very unique government system is a part of that.
Click to expand...

That's surely just a matter of different perspectives I think. Arguably UK democratic system has been pretty stable for about 350 years. Perhaps what you see as instability is what I see as responsiveness to change. Would explore this a bit further but on mobile and going to bed.
 
B

Boke1879

Member
CNN should end his contract. Thats the shit that's highly unethical.

I mean does all of this have anything to do with Trump surrogates cancelling their appointments with media.
 
S

Suikoguy

I whinny my fervor lowly, for his length is not as great as those of the Hylian war stallions
I sometimes forget this is an international forum, especially during US Political season.

It's just weird seeing someone say they are glad Russia is hacking US Dems.
 
B

Bonen no Max'd

Banned
Aaron Strife said:
That's such an odd reasoning. Like yes, Obama won the first and third most populous states in the country. He won. Nothing is contradictory here.

Romney got millions of votes from those states. If you discount NY/CA Obama still wins. He won nearly every swing state (North Carolina being the only exception).

(I know it's a stupid argument, I'm just basking in the stupidity of it)
Click to expand...
It just drives me crazy because the implication is that large metropolitan areas aren't "real" America unlike the small town in Idaho they're from.
 
C

Carpe Carnim

Member
Suikoguy said:
It's a surefire way to move towards a state income tax at this rate.
Click to expand...

The last thing that the GOPs paymasters—the developer's lobby—wants is a State Income Tax. The lack of one is one of the biggest magnets for transplants besides the beaches and 9 months of motorcycle weather.

The constant need for new ad valorum taxes by communities is a great way to keep the apathetic population just angry enough with elected officials and State employees to swallow the Conservative tax cut mantra, and impair good, middle-class jobs for 'those people'
 
T

thebloo

Member
Boke1879 said:
CNN should end his contract. Thats the shit that's highly unethical.

I mean does all of this have anything to do with Trump surrogates cancelling their appointments with media.
Click to expand...

CNN should have ended his contact when they found he was still getting paid by Trump. But for this? No. If it was any other pundit, a more neutral pundit, nobody would be saying anything.
 
A

Anoregon

The flight plan I just filed with the agency list me, my men, Dr. Pavel here. But only one of you!
Yall are tripping. Funeral for a friend/Love lies bleeding is the best Elton John song.
 
G

Gotchaye

Member
BlastProcessing said:
Think about how different Elections would be if we went straight popular vote. Entire sections of the country would be ignored. Politicians could camp out in urban centers. The Electoral College is a nod to States Rights. An acknowledgement that this is a Republic.
Click to expand...

I don't think this makes sense.

So, first, it's obviously kind of weird to be saying that if we got rid of the electoral college "entire sections" of the country would be ignored. Right now almost all of the country is ignored - that it creates safe and swing states is one of the main reasons that people don't like the electoral college. When we talk about voting third party and how it's terrible we have to add "as long as you live in a swing state", but if you don't live in a swing state then knock yourself out because lol your vote doesn't matter.

Second, why would campaigning look hugely different? I mean, to win a swing state you also have to win a majority of its votes, but politicians don't spend all of their time in the biggest cities in swing states. Is the idea that this only happens in swing states because so much of the country is irrelevant? Are candidates actually just reaching saturation in the cities in swing states and are therefore forced out into the countryside to scrounge up marginal votes? This doesn't seem very plausible to me. Like, is voter turnout in swing state cities much higher than voter turnout outside of them?

I mean, Florida is fairly urbanized. Ohio is kind of middle-of-the-road. New Hampshire is relatively rural. But even New Hampshire's got cities. Most campaigning is about media coverage, not about appealing directly to people face-to-face. And 40% of the country doesn't live in cities, so of course candidates are going to want to appeal to voters outside of cities, and they'll look for opportunities to get their message out.

Third, who cares where politicians are campaigning? Surely what matters is whose interests they're representing, but this makes it even clearer that mostly what matters is media coverage. If I'm a rural farmer, I'd much rather politicians promise massive farm subsidies in speeches that they give in big cities than have them come to my local diner and not promise massive farm subsidies. And of course politicians would have reason to compete for the votes of the 40% of the country that doesn't live in cities. It's stupid to establish battle lines and go all out over a few percentage points in the cities if nobody is even trying to get votes from this other 40%.

Fourth, if we were going to come up with something like the electoral college from scratch, in order to fiddle with the importance of different groups of voters to get something that produces nicer results than 1 person 1 vote, there's no way that we'd come up with the system we've got. Like, the usual justification - the one you seem to be appealing to - is that without the electoral college there's this minority of the population (rural voters) whose interests aren't going to be appropriately considered. Now, I don't think that's really true, but that's the argument. If that's a good argument then here's a fantastic argument: we should just make black people's votes count three times as much.

That said, just going to a national popular vote would definitely cause our elections to look very different, but not because of what the presidential candidates would do. Doing this would totally change the incentives states face in writing election laws. What if California adopts mandatory voting?
 
Y

YaBish

Member
Hey, just wanted to pop in and say that my mom, dad, and myself early voted for Hillary in NE-2. Not only that, but the election office was packed with women and minorities (and a gay couple with a screaming child).

Obviously very anecdotal, but it made me pretty happy about NE-2's chances of going blue. I think that'd Ashford's probs going to get reelected too.
 
A

ampere

Member
I'm voting in Georgia on Monday. Can't wait to say FUCK YOU to Trump with my vote.

Carpe Carnim said:
My wife and I have had our Florida absentee ballots for over a week. I finished mine the day we got them, but i'm waiting to mail it until my wife fills hers out. While she is a dedicated feminist and pretty darn Liberal, she absolutely hates politics, and has made it clear she trusts me to research the ballot issues and candidates, and she will vote the same way as I do. While I appreciate the trust, I find this attitude both flippant and dangerous. I am not going to bring it up to her, but I wish she would take more responsibility as a voter.

Pet peeve, had to vent
Click to expand...

I would instead look at it as she has a deep respect and trust in your voting research. Maybe she's afraid she'll mistakenly interpret a certain provision and is nervous about it.

What about asking her to join you in your research of the ballot issues next election?
 
B

BlastProcessing

Member
ZealousD said:
This is the fifth election in a row where the Presidential Candidates spend a hugely disproportionate amount of time in three states. Ohio, Florida, and Pennsylvania. The idea that entire sections of the country are not ignored now is completely laughable.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=90RajY2nrgk
Click to expand...

Those states actually represent a pretty good demographic snapshot of the country. I won't argue that elections have been trending towards a focus on certain states. I will argue that shifting to a straight national vote would make it far worse.

As it stands now, the system forces candidates to create a diverse coalition to win. Under a national vote, a winning coalition could be far more homogenous.

phisheep said:
That's surely just a matter of different perspectives I think. Arguably UK democratic system has been pretty stable for about 350 years. Perhaps what you see as instability is what I see as responsiveness to change. Would explore this a bit further but on mobile and going to bed.
Click to expand...

The UK is definitely on the more stable end of the spectrum, but I do think it has historically been too reactive for my tastes. I like my Government to be a little more grindingly slow.

Salvadora said:
Out of interest, how is UK an example of democratic* instability?

And please don't say Brexit.
Click to expand...

Like I said, I don't consider the UK to be as unstable as other Governments. I won't say Brexit itself is an example, but I will say that the government's reaction to the Brexit is a good example. Everything from the fact that it was ever allowed to go to a national vote to how they are handling the aftermath.

I would also point out the Cameron Clegg coalition as an example of the system failing. I prefer elections where the voters understand the coalitions they are voting for before they vote, rather than one where it's sprung on them after the fact.

Spoiled Milk said:
Sorry, I thought you meant the fact that electors could, theoretically, not follow the desire of the voters. Yes, I agree that our all-or-nothing points system is good.
Click to expand...

Most states have faithless Elector laws. I don't have a problem with more states following that lead, but I do think it's a state issue.
 
C

Carpe Carnim

Member
ampere said:
I'm voting in Georgia on Monday. Can't wait to say FUCK YOU to Trump with my vote.



I would instead look at it as she has a deep respect and trust in your voting research. Maybe she's afraid she'll mistakenly interpret a certain provision and is nervous about it.

What about asking her to join you in your research of the ballot issues next election?
Click to expand...

I've tried. She just finds the whole process depressing. We sometimes discuss the issues of the day, but she gets so frustrated with the constant fuckery that she tunes out. It seriously gives her anxiety that morons get to dictate such important decisions in her life. She's a college professor, so Conservative machinations often involve her paycheck, retirement, or her ability to teach a class without having to worry her students have concealed handguns.

But yeah, it's nice to know she trusts me to do my homework and make informed decisions she would agree with.
 
Y

Y2Kev

TLG Fan Caretaker Est. 2009
YaBish said:
Hey, just wanted to pop in and say that my mom, dad, and myself early voted for Hillary in NE-2. Not only that, but the election office was packed with women and minorities (and a gay couple with a screaming child).

Obviously very anecdotal, but it made me pretty happy about NE-2's chances of going blue. I think that'd Ashford's probs going to get reelected too.
Click to expand...

Good job! While you were there, did you get any data on gary johnson voters?
 
A

AntraxSuicide

Banned
ZealousD said:
This is the fifth election in a row where the Presidential Candidates spend a hugely disproportionate amount of time in three states. Ohio, Florida, and Pennsylvania. The idea that entire sections of the country are not ignored now is completely laughable.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=90RajY2nrgk
Click to expand...

At best, you just shift which states get focused on, and I would argue that the shift would only increase polarization and echo chambers. If you switch to a pure popular vote, then squeezing out all of your votes in Florida becomes much less important than just turtling in Texas/California (GOP/DEM respectively). In such a system, the clear best strategy (for the Dem, flip which states for the Republican) would be to just stay in New York and California (and in fact, just stay in certain metro areas). You have no reason to cater to anyone else.

I think this probably just leads to more Ted Cruz and Jill Stein candidates since they wouldn't be going to areas where they'd get any pushback. Why bother not being crazy when you really just need to be enthusiastic?
 
N

nature boy

Member
Donald J. Trump ‏@realDonaldTrump 3h3 hours ago
Nothing ever happened with any of these women. Totally made up nonsense to steal the election. Nobody has more respect for women than me!
Click to expand...

Told ya folks!
 
B

BlastProcessing

Member
Gotchaye said:
I don't think this makes sense.

So, first, it's obviously kind of weird to be saying that if we got rid of the electoral college "entire sections" of the country would be ignored. Right now almost all of the country is ignored - that it creates safe and swing states is one of the main reasons that people don't like the electoral college. When we talk about voting third party and how it's terrible we have to add "as long as you live in a swing state", but if you don't live in a swing state then knock yourself out because lol your vote doesn't matter.

Second, why would campaigning look hugely different? I mean, to win a swing state you also have to win a majority of its votes, but politicians don't spend all of their time in the biggest cities in swing states. Is the idea that this only happens in swing states because so much of the country is irrelevant? Are candidates actually just reaching saturation in the cities in swing states and are therefore forced out into the countryside to scrounge up marginal votes? This doesn't seem very plausible to me. Like, is voter turnout in swing state cities much higher than voter turnout outside of them?

I mean, Florida is fairly urbanized. Ohio is kind of middle-of-the-road. New Hampshire is relatively rural. But even New Hampshire's got cities. Most campaigning is about media coverage, not about appealing directly to people face-to-face. And 40% of the country doesn't live in cities, so of course candidates are going to want to appeal to voters outside of cities, and they'll look for opportunities to get their message out.

Third, who cares where politicians are campaigning? Surely what matters is whose interests they're representing, but this makes it even clearer that mostly what matters is media coverage. If I'm a rural farmer, I'd much rather politicians promise massive farm subsidies in speeches that they give in big cities than have them come to my local diner and not promise massive farm subsidies. And of course politicians would have reason to compete for the votes of the 40% of the country that doesn't live in cities. It's stupid to establish battle lines and go all out over a few percentage points in the cities if nobody is even trying to get votes from this other 40%.

Fourth, if we were going to come up with something like the electoral college from scratch, in order to fiddle with the importance of different groups of voters to get something that produces nicer results than 1 person 1 vote, there's no way that we'd come up with the system we've got. Like, the usual justification - the one you seem to be appealing to - is that without the electoral college there's this minority of the population (rural voters) whose interests aren't going to be appropriately considered. Now, I don't think that's really true, but that's the argument. If that's a good argument then here's a fantastic argument: we should just make black people's votes count three times as much.

That said, just going to a national popular vote would definitely cause our elections to look very different, but not because of what the presidential candidates would do. Doing this would totally change the incentives states face in writing election laws. What if California adopts mandatory voting?
Click to expand...

First I am not just talking about campaign stops and ads. I am talking about ground game and policy as well. I am also making a larger historical argument, rather than a specific one about the last 50 or so years. I think that the Electoral College is a flexible system that has gennerally served our Democracy well. I think, like many parts of our Constitution many of the elements are happy accidents. I don't think The Founders for saw how teh EC would play out just like I don't think they realized that they enshrined a two party system into the 12th Amendment. I do think that those elements have played a part in the relative sucess of American Democracy.

I look at democracy through the lense of coalitions. I think that the EC has historically forced candidates to create more diverse coalitions than they would have if the Presidency was decided by a simple national vote.
 
W

Wilsongt

Member
Suikoguy said:
I sometimes forget this is an international forum, especially during US Political season.

It's just weird seeing someone say they are glad Russia is hacking US Dems.
Click to expand...

Bernie supporters were international. I even see internafional grad students who don't even vote throwing their input around saying they don't like either candidate
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

Show us your gaming setup: 2024 Edition
2 3 4 5
234
42K
Bloobs replied
  • Locked
Show us your gaming setup: 2023 Edition | 20th anniversary thread
2 3 4 5 6
268
59K
DGrayson replied
  • Locked
PoliGAF 2017 |OT6| Made this thread during Harvey because the ratings would be higher
338 339 340 341 342
17K
2M
UselessNapkin replied
  • Locked
PoliGAF 2017 |OT5| The Man In the High Chair
395 396 397 398 399
20K
2M
RDreamer replied
  • Locked
PoliGAF 2017 |OT4| The leaks are coming from inside the white house
396 397 398 399 400
20K
2M
ShironRedshift replied
Top Bottom